PANASONIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 25, 2021

2020002693 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/442,639 05/13/2015 Hirohisa IMAI 11329/461 8912 83377 7590 01/25/2021 BGL/Panasonic P.O. Box 10395 Chicago, IL 60610 EXAMINER STAPLETON, ERIC S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3761 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2021 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte HIROHISA IMAI, HIROYOSHI NOMURA, and KOICHIRO YAMASHITA ____________________ Appeal 2020-002693 Application 14/442,639 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2020-002693 Application 14/442,639 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10.2 Final Act. 4–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The appealed claims relate to a heating cooker that heats food. Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent, and claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A heating cooker comprising: a heating chamber that houses food; a heater that heats the food in the heating chamber; an imaging device in a side surface of the heating chamber that acquires image data of the food after the food has been housed inside the heating chamber; an interface that accepts a user input relating to heating control content defining a heating operation of the heating unit; a first memory that stores control information in which the image data of the food and the heating control content corresponding to the food specified from the image data of the food are associated with each other; a specification analyzer that specifies the heating control content associated with resembling image data resembling the 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Panasonic Intellectual Management Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Appellant withdrew claim 11 pursuant to a restriction requirement. Appeal Br. 6; Final Act. 1. Appeal 2020-002693 Application 14/442,639 3 image data of the food acquired by the imaging device, based on the control information stored in the first memory; a start order button that is connected to a heating controller and starts the heating operation of the heater; and a register that associates the image data of the food and the heating control content with each other and updates the control information within the first memory, when the interface accepts the user input and then the hearing controller starts the heating operation. REJECTION Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ogami and Ishii.3 ANALYSIS Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 each similarly recite that the device includes a specification analyzer and a register. For the reasons that follow, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not explained in sufficient detail how either Ogami or Ishii reads on the recited specification analyzer and register. See Appeal Br. 12–13. The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claims 1–10 would have been obvious from the combined teachings of Ogami and Ishii. Final 3 Ogami (JP2005-140418 A, published June 2, 2005); Ishii (US 5,360,965, issued Nov. 1, 1994). We refer to the machine translation of Ogami dated June 22, 2017, provided by the Examiner. Appeal 2020-002693 Application 14/442,639 4 Act. 4–16. More specifically, the Examiner finds that the “cooking control part 1, imaging part 2, container detection part 3, information registration part 4, information storage part 5, mobile phone 80” of Ogami’s microwave oven correspond both to the specification analyzer and to the register. Final Act. 5; Ans. 4. This list includes all of the parts depicted in Figure 1 of Ogami except key input section 6, door opening closed detection part 7, cooking mechanism part 8, and display channel 12. See Ogami ¶ 31 (identifying parts of the embodiment depicted in Figure 1). Furthermore, the Examiner finds that the functions associated with the specification analyzer and the register are taught by “Fig. 1–8 and para 30–79” of Ogami. Final Act. 5. Paragraphs 30–79 of Ogami include the entire description of the embodiments taught by Ogami, and Figures 1–8 include all of the figures in Ogami. These findings do not identify the components of Ogami alleged to correspond to the claimed specification analyzer and register with sufficient particularity to permit Appellant to respond meaningfully. See In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“During examination, the examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.”); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (The PTO fails to carry its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie rejection when the rejection is so “uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.”). The Examiner’s discussion of Ishii also lacks specificity. The Examiner finds that Ishii’s “circuit in Fig. 11” and “predetermined control Appeal 2020-002693 Application 14/442,639 5 program” read on the specification analyzer recited in claim 1 and that Ishii’s “circuit seen in Fig. 11” reads on the register. Final Act. 11–12; Ans. 4–5. Figure 11 is a schematic diagram of the electronics for the entire microwave oven described by Ishii and does not identify any particular part or combination of parts corresponding to the specification analyzer or the register. See Ishii 5:49–50 (describing Figure 11). Furthermore, the Examiner finds that the functions associated with the specification analyzer and the register are taught by “Fig. 1–3 and 11–30b and col 6–32” of Ishii. Columns 6–32 of Ishii include the entire “Description of the Preferred Embodiment;” and Figures 1–3 and 11–30b include all of the drawing figures in Ishii except for one drawing figure depicting a torque sensor and six figures depicting cookware. See Ishii 5:35–48 (describing Figures 4–11). Like the findings regarding Ogami, the Examiner’s findings regarding Ishii do not identify the portions alleged to correspond to the claimed specification analyzer and register with sufficient particularity to permit Appellant to respond meaningfully. See In re Kumar, 418 F.3d at 1366; see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d at 1362. For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatantable over Ogami and Ishii as articulated by the Examiner. Appeal 2020-002693 Application 14/442,639 6 NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION Although we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–10 as articulated by the Examiner, we do agree with the Examiner that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious from the combined teachings of Ogami and Ishii. Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter new grounds of rejection against claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ogami and Ishii. We apply the teachings of Ogami and Ishii against claim 1 as follows: Claim 1 Teachings of Ogami and Ishii A heating cooker comprising: Ogami describes microwave oven 100. Ogami ¶ 31. a heating chamber that houses food; Ogami teaches placing an item to be heated (in the particular case described, a glass of milk) “in the microwave oven 100” and then shutting door 14 behind the item. Ogami ¶ 52, 54. This teaching necessarily implies that Ogami’s microwave oven has a heating chamber that houses food. a heater that heats the food in the heating chamber; Ogami’s microwave oven 100 has cooking mechanism part 8. Ogami ¶ 31. an imaging device in a side surface of the heating chamber that acquires image data of the food after the food has been housed inside the heating chamber; Ogami’s microwave oven 100 has electronic camera 13. Ogami ¶ 31. In operation, electronic camera 13 photographs a container, such as glass 15 containing a foodstuff, such as milk. Ogami ¶ 49. Ogami Appeal 2020-002693 Application 14/442,639 7 does not disclose that electronic camera 13 is mounted in a side surface of the heating chamber or that the camera acquires image data of the food after the food has been housed inside the heating chamber. Ishii discloses a microwave oven. Ishii 11:61–63. Ishii’s microwave oven mounts charge-coupled device (“CCD”) camera 62 on an inner casing so as to provide the CCD camera a view of heating chamber 4 of the oven. Ishii 12:53–68, Figs. 11, 12. Ishii lists CCD camera 62 among sensors used for classifying food placed in heating chamber 4. Id. an interface that accepts a user input relating to heating control content defining a heating operation of the heating unit; Ogami’s microwave oven 100 has key input section 6. Ogami ¶ 31, Fig. 1. Key input section 6 includes register button 10 and scroll button 11. Ogami ¶ 32. A user may use registering button 10 and stroke button 11 to enter heating control content during a register mode. Ogami ¶¶ 32, 38–39. a first memory that stores control information in which the image data of the food and the heating control content corresponding to the food specified from the image data of the food are associated with each other; Ogami’s microwave oven 100 has information storage part 5 that stores cooking information. Ogami ¶ 31. When a registration process is completed, the image data of the food, the cooking item, and the cooking time are saved to Appeal 2020-002693 Application 14/442,639 8 information storage part 5. Ogami ¶ 40. a specification analyzer that specifies the heating control content associated with resembling image data resembling the image data of the food acquired by the imaging device, based on the control information stored in the first memory; Ogami’s microwave oven 100 has cooking control part 1. Ogami ¶ 31. When electronic camera 13 acquires image data of a packaged food item, the camera forwards the image data to cooking control part 1. Ogami ¶¶ 42, 49. Cooking control part 1 searches image data stored in information storage part 5 and retrieves heating control content from the information storage. Ogami ¶ 42. a start order button that is connected to a heating controller and starts the heating operation of the heater; and Ogami’s microwave oven does not include a start order button. Instead, Ogami’s microwave oven 100 commences a heating operation when door opening closed detection part 7 detects that door 14 has been closed. Ogami ¶¶ 31, 50, 52. Ishii’s microwave oven has start switch 68, which is connected to microprocessor 67. When start switch 68 is operated, microprocessor 67 executes a cooking mode selection program, classifies food placed in the microwave oven, and then controls the heating process. Ishii 13:21–54, 14:24–36, Fig. 11. a register that associates the image data of the food and the heating Ogami’s microwave oven 100 includes information registration Appeal 2020-002693 Application 14/442,639 9 control content with each other and updates the control information within the first memory, when the interface accepts the user input and then the heating controller starts the heating operation. part 4. Ogami ¶ 31. After a user presses register button 10 to accept heating control content entered by the user, information registration part 4 associates the heating control content with the image data and stores both in information storage part 5. Ogami ¶¶ 39, 40. If the registration is performed in the course of heating the food item (see Ogami ¶ 52), microwave oven 100 receives the food item (Ogami ¶¶ 53, 54, Fig. 5, steps S17, S18, S8, S9). Once the food item is placed in microwave oven 100 and door 14 is closed, heating commences. Ogami ¶ 54. In this sense, information registration part 4 updates heating control content and image data in information storage part 5 when user input is accepted and the heating operation starts. As indicated on the claim mapping above, Ogami does not disclose: an imaging device mounted in a side surface of the heating chamber, an imaging device that acquires image data of food after the food has been housed inside the heating chamber, or a start order button. As also indicated on the claim mapping above, Ishii describes all three. It would have been obvious to replace Ogami’s electronic camera 13, mounted on the exterior of the oven housing, with an electronic camera Appeal 2020-002693 Application 14/442,639 10 mounted in a side surface of the heating chamber, as taught by Ishii. Ishii shows that it was known to mount an electronic camera, such as a CCD camera, on an inner casing so as to provide the CCD camera a view of heating chamber 4 of the oven. Ishii 12:53–68, Fig. 12. Outside of the heating chamber, lighting conditions and background could vary widely. Mounting the camera inside the heating chamber, placing the food item inside the heating chamber, and then closing the door to the heating chamber before acquiring image data of the food item (packaged or not) would have allowed one of ordinary skill in the art to better control the lighting conditions and background against which image data was acquired. Allowing greater control over the lighting conditions and background against which image data was acquired would have improved the likelihood that Ogami’s information register 4 would correctly associate acquired image data with resembling image data stored in the information storage part. It also would have been obvious to supplement Ogami’s door opening closed detection part 7 with a start switch as described by Ishii. If the food item is to be placed inside a heating chamber prior to imaging, then it would be necessary to acquire the image data prior to starting heating rather than starting heating when the door closes. Replacing Ogami’s door opening closed detection part 7 with a start switch would have permitted acquiring image data to select proper cooking data prior to heating operation. Appeal 2020-002693 Application 14/442,639 11 Appellant contends that Ogami fails to teach or suggest that the imaging device “[acquire] image data of the food,” as recited in claim 1, because Ogami’s electronic camera acquires image data of a package containing the food. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 1–2. During prosecution, the [Patent and Trademark Office] applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). That said: Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. Superguide Corp. v. DirectTV Enterps., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant’s interpretation of the phrase “acquires image data of the food” is too narrow. The ordinary meaning of the phrase does not exclude acquiring image data of the food while the food is contained in a package. This is particularly true where, as in Ogami, the “package” is a glass through which the food (in that case, milk) is visible. See, e.g., Ogami ¶ 37. Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification teaches imaging food contained in a container or “package,” such as a plate, bowl, or oven dish. See, e.g., Appeal 2020-002693 Application 14/442,639 12 Spec. ¶¶ 74–76, 78. These examples imply that the language “acquires image data of the food” is sufficiently broad to encompass at least some types of containers or “packages.” Therefore, to the extent that Ogami teaches acquiring image data of food contained in packages rather than images of the food somehow acquired in isolation, those teachings are within the scope of claim 1. Appellant also points out that Ishii teaches using CCD camera 62 to determine the size or area of a food item (Ishii 23:37–40), or to determine the number of food items placed in the heating chamber (Ishii 25:60–65), but not to acquire image data of the food for comparison to image data stored in a memory. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant contends that Ishii’s teachings do not suggest a specification analyzer as recited in claim 1 because Ishii does not teach comparing the acquired image data to image data stored in memory. Appeal Br. 11–12. This contention is not persuasive because Ogami teaches comparing acquired image data with image data stored in memory to identify a food item. See, e.g., Ogami ¶¶ 50, 52. Ishii teaches that it was known to mount an electronic camera in the side surface of a heating chamber of a microwave oven for use in imaging and classifying a food item placed in the chamber. Ishii 12:53–68, Figs. 11, 12. It would have been obvious to reposition Ogami’s electronic camera from the exterior of the oven, as described by Ogami, to a position where the camera might acquire data concerning food items (packaged or not) placed inside the heating chamber, as described by Ishii, for use in classifying the Appeal 2020-002693 Application 14/442,639 13 food. Once the camera forwarded the image data it collected to the cooking control, the cooking control part, acting as a specification analyzer, could use the image data in the manner described by Ogami rather than in the more limited manner described by Ishii. The subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious from the combined teachings of Ogami and Ishii. Therefore, we enter new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 against claim 1. The entry of new grounds of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) is discretionary. No inference should be drawn as to our views on the allowability of claims 2–10 based on our decision to enter new grounds of rejection only against claim 1.4 CONCLUSION This Decision includes a new ground of rejection. Section 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Regarding the new ground of 4 Appellant contends that the term “feature quantity,” as used in dependent claim 8, is limited to a histogram representing a distribution of the brightness of each primary color in space. Appeal Br. 17–19. The Specification merely says that “a histogram that is a feature quantity and the resemblance of two images will be described.” Spec. ¶ 56 (italics added for emphasis). This statement implies that such a histogram is merely one embodiment of a feature quantity. Although we do not make a new ground of rejection against dependent claim 8, we note that Appellant’s contention improperly seeks to import an embodiment from the Specification into claim 8. Appeal 2020-002693 Application 14/442,639 14 rejection, 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant must exercise, WITHIN TWO MONTHS, one of the following options: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . [; or] (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . . Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1214.01. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground of Rejection 1–10 103 Ogami, Ishii 1–10 1 Overall Outcome 1–10 1 REVERSED; 35 U.S.C. § 41.50(b)